Your thoughts on... Nerd/Geek culture of today.

[The Lunatic]

Snip

So, could you explain how your belief that only men would take issue with a woman sleeping around with game journalists isn't sexist?

Why is it you feel that's something only men would do?

Why is it you feel that these men are "Man-children"?

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

Since this thread has now turned into a typical 7-page circlejerk including all the usual topics like Gamergate, inclusion of women, history of bullying etc. I've come to realize "geek culture" has way too much time on its hands. Which is why I really hope to find a job in the coming weeks, just to get a sense of what living in real world is actually like again. When you don't have all week to think of rebuttals to insipid online arguments, when you have to live on a decent diet, exercise, meet friends and so on, you gain a bit of perspective. I've had enough of sitting on my ass being able to play video games all day. At one point in my life I thought it to be the fulfillment of my dreams, when no one would force you to do anything. But now I've had my time doing it, time for something else.

 

[Zontar]

Oh shit wait, she was in a relationship?

That makes it totally not sexist then. Good thing you cleared that up!

You... you do understand that Western society is dominantly, to the point of near exclusivity outside of a few cults and religious sects, a monogamous society, right? Despite your attempt at sarcasm, it does, actually, change quite a bit.

Of course you know that already.

Wait, Reddit and 4chan didn't want TMZ bullshit about a nobody on their forums?

Also emphasis on the bold and underlined part. Harassing women had become so normal that even you described it as "typical monthly gaming drama".

Typical. Monthly. Gaming. Drama.

Something that's so normal in the gaming community that even you described it as typical and monthly.

I have to ask, do you know about Reddit and 4chan outside of knowing their names? Because, at least back in 2014 before both started to change dramatically, they where both sites that had an "anything goes" policy so long as whatever it is in question isn't illegal. The fact that they took down what was (and in many ways despite their changes in the years since still is) considered normal and unnoteworthy was itself a red flag for many and enough on its own to ask why there seemed to be an attempt to keep this information quiet.

Also, what's with the "harassing women" nonsense? We where not talking about anything that could possibly be mistaken out of misinterpretation to be such and you know this very well.

What made this typical was that it was drama involving people who where working in the industry, no one could read this thread and honestly come to the conclusion that it was anything else. You remember Dorito's Pope? That was one such incident. Oh look at how many women got harassed because of that /sarcasm.

To be honest, looking at 2014 the ONLY incident that one could even pretend was about harassing women in gaming for the entire year before that was the incident where Quinn (ironically) lied about an image board for clinically depressed people harassing her and then sending a mob to harass them. You've got to love the irony of that if it wasn't so despicable.

Oh jeez the majority is always right? What an argument!

It's a stronger argument then literally none at all, which so far is what you and the literal only other person on the internet who took issue with the pose have to say on the matter.

It's simple economics: if a near unanimity of your paying customers want one thing, and so few people that one hand is all you need to count them with want another, the only people who will take the side of the latter don't have the competence to make such decisions for a company if they had reached their position by earning it.

I'm sorry you hate this basic reality of economics, but that's how capitalism works.

 

[Zontar]

Does it change it massively enough to make it not sexist?

Given how the reaction being sexist wouldn't even be a considered if she was a man, yes, the change is in fact massive enough to make it not sexist. Unless you're going to pretend the reaction to a man cheating on his girlfriend (who he also abused) with 5 women wouldn't get a negative reaction from people.

Hey it wasn't me that described it as "typical monthly gaming drama".

You're right about that, but you're also wrong in that you took the statement that it was monthly gaming drama and twisted it to be about harassment of women out of nowhere.

Well the majority is always right you say, so did Blizzard listen to them?

I mean that's probably the best way to find out if the majority creates Blizzard's game for them. To find out if they're always right.

I don't know what your point here is outside of the fact Blizzard's current executive leadership is filled with morons (as their reaction to Vanilla WoW servers and their taking said servers down shows). Here's a simple rule of economics: if your consumer base wants X, and you take away X, that's bad for business. Is it bad enough to cause the business to shut down? No. Is it bad enough to cost more money then keeping X would have been? There's really no way to argue anything else.

 

[The Lunatic]

Snip

So, you say you aren't targeting men, then specifically target men.


You're using the term "Man-Children" to describe a group of people who take interest in a woman sleeping with some journalists and then claiming you're not saying that they're men.

Which is it? You can't use "Man-children" to describe people and not have it be a gendered insult, as "Man" is literally in the insult you're using.

 

[IceForce]

Well then it's a good thing it didn't continue for over a year given how it very quickly disappeared and was overshadowed

, and then the Gamers are Dead articles where posted and the Quinspiracy was dead once and for all.

Well, quite obviously it didn't "disappear" and wasn't "overshadowed" and wasn't "dead once and for all", when literally two posts later you go on another tirade all about how awful Zoe is. Specifically:

It's not a private life when that stranger goes out of their way to attempt to keep it in the limelight. The reason Quinn's name keeps coming up but not Greyson's isn't because of sexism, it's because Greyson kept his head down and his mouth shut when it was happening instead of going online, making an ass of himself, becoming a propagandist, oh and violating a person's rights with an illegal and unconstitutional gag order while simultaneously cyber-stalking that same person.

Remind me again, who was the journalist in this equation? Who was it that allegedly breached journalistic ethics? Certainly not the person you keep railing against.

 

[Zontar]

Well, quite obviously it didn't "disappear" and wasn't "overshadowed" and wasn't "dead once and for all", when literally two posts later you go on yet another harangue all about how awful Zoe is.

Instead of re-writing what I already wrote regarding this to Silvanus I'll just post a direct link [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.938029-Your-thoughts-on-Nerd-Geek-culture-of-today?page=7#23645981]. It's more efficient that way.

Remind me again, who was the journalist in this equation? Who was it that allegedly breached journalistic ethics? Certainly not the person you keep railing against.

I keep railing against? Look, you can be against corrupt journalists by going after the people who they admit to having lied to as a means to get money (their advertisers) while acknowledging the fact that someone who abused their partner while cheating on them with multiple people is a terrible person. Is it is only something that's permissible when men are the ones doing it?

Something being sexist if it was a man in the situation wouldn't be sexist if it was a woman? What? That makes even less sense.

On the contrary, that isn't the point I was making. I'll repeat my point: if Zoe has been a man who abused his girlfriend while cheating on said girlfriend with 5 women, most people who would hear about that would take exception to it, and no one would even be entertaining the idea that doing so is sexist in any way. Yet because Zoe is a woman you seem to be doing so.

Which would be the case if "out of nowhere" meant "what we've been discussing for the last few posts".

But hey. I thought it was a huge thing, and you thought it was so small and common place that it's just typical monthly gaming drama. You said it, not me.

On the contrary, YOU said it was about harassment. I, on the other hand, said such controversies where some journalist or member of the industry screws up is common place. You took that and acted as though I was saying harassment was that common place. That was all you, not me. And it was, in fact, out of nowhere, given the context of our conversation until that point.

Blizzard is stupid and the majority is always right? What an argument.

Are you actually going to make an argument defending Blizzard, or the fact that mathematically and objectively they made a terrible business decision given how the people who supported them statistically do not exist? Or the fact your calling it a "majority" downplays the fact that those who aren't part of said majority statistically do not exist?

 

[IceForce]

...while acknowledging the fact that someone who abused their partner while cheating on them with multiple people is a terrible person.

And that's exactly my point. If the matter truly and honestly was "dead once and for all", then it shouldn't even BE "acknowledged".

Instead of re-writing what I already wrote regarding this to Silvanus I'll just post a direct link [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.938029-Your-thoughts-on-Nerd-Geek-culture-of-today?page=7#23645981]. It's more efficient that way.

The correct response to someone bringing up a subject that is "dead once and for all" is to tell the person that the subject is dead and buried and you don't wish to talk about it.
But you didn't. You engaged in the subject once again, proving that it's not quite as "dead" as you initially indicated.

...

Also this from the previous page:

So we have 2 people vs. the virtual entirety of Blizzard's fanbase/consumer base.

Citation please. Where is your proof that the "virtual entirety" of Blizzard's consumer base was against the Tracer change? Did you poll them all?

 

[Zontar]

The correct response to someone bringing up a subject that is "dead once and for all" is to tell the person that the subject is dead and buried and you don't wish to talk about it.

Sorry but after 2 years of doing that with others it didn't really work. Wu for example only went away after her supporters got tired of her, which was about 18 months after GG actively tried to move away from talking about her.

Plus, as someone who has a history with many in my circle having been abused by their partners, if someone is trying to defend a self-admitted abuser I'm not exactly the type of person to let it fly. It's a flaw in who I am but it's something I can't seem to get rid of.

Citation please. Where is your proof that the "virtual entirety" of Blizzard's consumer base was against the Tracer change? Did you poll them all?

Let's see: there's the fact that you are now the third person on the entirety of the internet who seems to be supporting Blizzard in all this for one. Their own forums for another as there doesn't seem to be anyone giving their support to them. If there is this group out there who support Blizzard taking an anti-sex stance that would barely garner a T rating from rating boards, they've gone out of their way to make their existence not be known. Sure it's the argument of absence of evidence but I'm not going to assume something that hasn't proven itself to be real is real.

 

[IceForce]

there's the fact that you are now the third person on the entirety of the internet ...

Let me just stop you there. Generally, it's considered rather poor form to respond to a [citation needed] with an even more grandiose claim than the one that required citing.

So now we need TWO citations needed, - one for the "virtual entirety" claim you posted earlier, and another for this "third person on the entirety of the internet" claim you made right here.

I'm not going to assume something that hasn't proven itself to be real is real.

Strange, because you've made quite a few assumptions here already.

You've assumed that the "virtual entirety" of Blizzard's userbase was in opposition to the Tracer alteration, despite you fully admitting you have no real evidence to support such an assumption. You've also assumed I'm the "third person on the entirety of the internet" to believe something, when I've never indicated I believed any such thing, and once again you have no evidence to support this assumption anyways.

 

[Zontar]

Let me just stop you there. Generally, it's considered rather poor form to respond to a [citation needed] with an even more grandiose claim than the one that required citing.

So now we need TWO citations needed, - one for the "virtual entirety" claim you posted earlier, and another for this "third person on the entirety of the internet" claim you made right here.

So basically you don't have any evidence to contradict my observations?

Strange, because you've made quite a few assumptions here already.

You've assumed that the "virtual entirety" of Blizzard's userbase was in opposition to the Tracer alteration, despite you fully admitting you have no real evidence to support such an assumption. You've also assumed I'm the "third person on the entirety of the internet" to believe something, when I've never indicated I believed any such thing, and once again you have no evidence to support this assumption anyways.

So basically one can't make hyperbolic statement and every single thing we will ever say must be 100% literal and accurate, got it.

In any event, no one anywhere has demonstrated there being any level of support amongst Blizzard's user base for the removal outside of the lone individual who complained in the first place. As it stands that remains the case, meanwhile Blizzard's forums and social media outlets had been flooded by long time users complaining about it being removed. If there is any evidence that more then a handful of people support the removal, enough to constitute being large enough to statistically be a group worth noting even exists, I've not seen any evidence of such and not a single person has presented such evidence either.

I'm not going to assume a silent group exists out there that supports her pose being removed who for whatever reason don't want their existence known.

That's a strange, parallel universe peering crystal ball you have there. Back in the real world I can't track down anything on the scale of the Quinnconspiracy. Hell you even pointed out that people were outraged that multiple websites didn't care about the TMZ bullshit of some nobody maybe sleeping with people.

I don't know why you're under the illusion any of these sites are any better then TMZ when their job is literally to be the TMZ of gaming, and surprise surprise a month before the Quinspiracy started there was another such relationship that happened that was unprofessional in the extreme, but instead the gaming press elected to report on it instead of covering it up. Of course because they reported on it instead of covering it up no one gave a shit and by the end of the week everyone had forgotten it had happened.

Of course, that would have been the fate of the Zoe Post had it been reported on (since it was literally bog standard reporting material for gaming sites at the time before standards became a thing in the post-GG gaming world) or ignored it. Instead the TMZ of gaming decided "you know what, at this precise moment where it will obviously look like we are covering something up, we should not make any mention of this story and delete any conversation of it happening on our sites and also on sites that have a history of only deleting illegal material. We know it'll make us look suspect because of the obvious conflict of interest and connections we have to the implicated, but we suddenly have morals damn it". I highly doubt this was the thought process behind it. And the GameJornosPro leak proves it wasn't.

But I guess if you say it's sexist then that's the only thing you need for your argument, eh? We'll just have to take your word for it apparently.

You know, given how this exact situation actually did get reported on by the gaming media when the implicated was a man, but covered up one month later when it was a woman, I think sexist is actually a perfectly accurate word for it. Unless you're using the nonsensical definition where only men can be sexist, but only fringe radicals believe such nonsense.

Funny how the one that was about a woman maybe sleeping with people caused all the harassment though. Which, as you pointed out, is included in this "typical, monthly gaming drama".

I am enjoying seeing you backpedal from what you said though.

You know, your intentionally misinterpreting my posts doesn't actually change what I posts have said. Just because you choose to ignore what is said and respond to meaning you place upon it that does not exist doesn't actually make that meaning become what the words say.

I stated that controversy in the gaming world is a monthly thing. You took that as meaning that women being harassed for sleeping with people is the norm in the gaming world. There is no rational connection between the two, and you have done nothing to attempt to change that in your posts aside from trying to repeat the conclusion without explaining a rational for how you came to that conclusion in the first place.

Am I going to defend Blizzard from the argument "Blizzard is stupid and the majority are always right"? You honestly think that "The majority is always right" is an argument that holds any weight whatsoever?

Are you saying the minority is always right?

In any event, in the business world of a capitalist nation, which despite what you clearly believe is not in fact the same as the democratic system of governance, the customer is always right. And when the customer says "I don't like you removing 'x' form the product for no justifiable reason", the customer is right. Why do you believe the customer is wrong? Because that is the stance you are taking, that the customer is wrong.

 

[Silvanus]

Quite the contrary, as it disproves Pluvia's assumption that taking issue with a person in a committed relationship who sleeps with others is the same as taking issue with someone who sleeps with others, and that because of the later is sexist the former must also be sexist. I didn't prove your point and neither I nor anyone else proves Pluvia's.

My point is that people are still condemning a stranger's private life, over a year after the fact and beyond any possible practical argument. That was proven when you did exactly that.

It's not a private life when that stranger goes out of their way to attempt to keep it in the limelight. The reason Quinn's name keeps coming up but not Greyson's isn't because of sexism, it's because Greyson kept his head down and his mouth shut when it was happening instead of going online, making an ass of himself, becoming a propagandist, oh and violating a person's rights with an illegal and unconstitutional gag order while simultaneously cyber-stalking that same person.

If it was just the sex, only the sex and nothing but the sex then she's be as old news as Dorito's Pope, a meme most gamer's don't even understand anymore. But that wasn't what happened and instead a terrible person did terrible things on a consistent basis and the internet, being the internet, didn't forget.

More condemnation, this time about how she's comported herself afterwards. It shouldn't fucking matter. It's a private matter. Drop it.

Here's a very, very easy way to be forgotten that everyone who is against GG seems to either not be willing to accept or simply can't understand: the easier and simplest (and realistically only) way to be forgotten by the internet is to stop, let time pass and go into obscurity. That's it. That's as of yet the only way we have learned to let the internet forget us. But because a lot of those who are big names who are against GG tend to suffer narcissistic personality disorder that isn't likely to happen any time soon.

She suffered ongoing harassment. To argue this is her fault, for not shutting up when she first did, is transparent victim-blaming. There's no other word for it. It's sick.

Plenty of people understand that silence is a method of being forgotten. Perhaps some people don't agree that harassment should be forgotten, and believe it should be more widely acknowledged. Perhaps some people recognise that no matter how quiet you are, it doesn't even always work to defuse the situation anyway.

 

[Disco Biscuit]

Can you guys debate your two year old GG stuff in another thread? I was all ready to get into this on the side of "You aren't actually nerds", but here you are back to gender politics.

Are you even gamers?

 

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Snip.

Snip.

Snip.

Snip.

[HEADING=2][/HEADING]

Hey folks, while I recognize that there's going to be a fair bit of topic drift in any given conversation as broad as this one, it feels like you've jumped ship on the geek or nerd culture discussion, and brought it down to a Zoe Quinn-GamerGate-Sexism-as-Culture thing that is tangentially related, but not quite on the mark. What Zoe Quinn did, and what's happened afterward, is only a single facet of the overall nerd and geek culture, and shouldn't make up the full depth of this thread. Pluvia in particular opened a can of worms, but at least that first post was a broader umbrella of sexism that is inherent across geek culture. It wasn't until the defense of GamerGate or the self-identified GamerGate identity thing that the thread went off the rails.

So, while I'm not opposed to this discussion happening, let's go ahead and try to bring it back toward a wider set of nerd things. Yes, we can agree that GamerGate exists and is a facet of the discussion, but so are comics, tabletop games, films, fantasy sports, and the meta-musings of the videogame industry.

Also, I want to make sure everyone in this conversation understands that criticism of certain aspects of something doesn't necessarily mean wide, umbrella criticism of that thing. Any discussion is going to be prey to mistakes, misunderstandings, and partial information. Try not to take everything personally, yeah?

[HEADING=2][/HEADING]

More on topic...

I really wish geek culture could zen out a bit sometimes. Outrage comes pretty easily among nerds, and sometimes that results in groups of people getting very aggressive in defense of their hobbies, favorites, or beliefs. Hit-back-first is weirdly common among the bullied, and among the nerdy hobbies, geeks can be terrifying bullies themselves when they hold all the power.

Are you even gamers?

Yo, not cool. Let's not say stuff like this, even ironically.